In article <3FE5F1D6.2B057...@backpacker.com>, stde...@backpacker.com says...
>Something to notice is that sanctions are often against *US* companies >but not against all companies in the world. If the US government only >cared about getting US companies these oil contracts, why come up with >the sanctions in the first place?
A good point but not original. There does come a point where the US government has imposed sanctions agains so many countries that this nation's export business suffers heavily against foreign competition. The only sanctions with real teeth are those placed by the United Nations with wide backing. Just think of all the business we have lost in Cuba to other nations, especially Canada, over the years.
"The Role of the Media in Shaping Public Perception.- Report from a CPAP briefing by Stephen Pelletiere
Pelletiere began by addressing the media campaign against Iraq following the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. did not expect Iraq to win, and when it did, U.S. leaders were "dumbfounded."
"All of the stories were slanted against Iraq," which by itself is suspicious. In addition, some of the stories were simply "phony," such as the report that 80,000 to 100,000 Kurds were gassed to death by Iraq. "You can’t kill that many people using gas, in a concentrated period, in terrain such as exists in northern Iraq."
The above text is based on remarks delivered on 13 September 2001 by Stephen Pelletiere, Professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Army War College. His presentation was based on his book Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Gulf (Praeger: 2001). __________________________
"In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds."
Excerpts form 1990 Pentagon report, published just prior to the invasion of Kuwait. Its authors are Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II, and Leif R. Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The report is 93 pages, but I append here only the passages having to do with the aforementioned issue:
Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East
Excerpt, Chapter 5
U.S. SECURITY AND IRAQI POWER
Introduction. Throughout the war the United States practiced a fairly benign policy toward Iraq. Although initially disapproving of the invasion, Washington came slowly over to the side of Baghdad. Both wanted to restore the status quo ante to the Gulf and to reestablish the relative harmony that prevailed there before Khomeini began threatening the regional balance of power. Khomenini’s revolutionary appeal was anathema to both Baghdad and Washington; hence they wanted to get rid of him.
United by a common interest, Iraq and the United States restored diplomatic relations in 1984, and the United States began to actively assist Iraq in ending the fighting. It mounted Operation Staunch, an attempt to stem the flow of arms to Iran. It also increased its purchases of Iraqi oil while cutting back on Iranian oil purchases, and it urged its allies to do likewise. All this had the effect of repairing relations between the two countries, which had been at a very low ebb.
In September 1988, however -- a month after the war had ended -- the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq’s relations with the Kurds. It is beyond the scope of this study to go deeply into this matter; suffice it to say that throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies -- Iran and the elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of this operation -- according to the U.S. State Department -- gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds’ human rights.
Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department’s claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
We would have expected, in a matter as serious as this, that the Congress would have exercised some care. However, passage of the sanctions measure through the Congress was unusually swift -- at least in the Senate where a unanimous vote was secured within 24 hours. Further, the proposed sanctions were quite draconian (and will be discussed in detail below). Fortunately for the future of Iraqi-U.S. ties, the sanctions measure failed to pass on a bureaucratic technicality (it was attached as a rider to a bill that died before adjournment).
It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.
Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action. As a result of the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is now the most powerful state in the Persian Gulf, an area in which we have vital interests. To maintain an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Gulf to the West, we need to develop good working relations with all of the Gulf states, and particularly with Iraq, the strongest.
+
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw
pope_about_town at Xyahoo.com wrote: > "The Role of the Media in Shaping Public Perception.- > Report from a CPAP briefing by Stephen Pelletiere
> Pelletiere began by addressing the media campaign against Iraq > following the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. did not expect Iraq to win, and > when it did, U.S. leaders were "dumbfounded."
> "All of the stories were slanted against Iraq," which by itself is > suspicious. In addition, some of the stories were simply "phony," such > as the report that 80,000 to 100,000 Kurds were gassed to death by > Iraq. "You can’t kill that many people using gas, in a concentrated > period, in terrain such as exists in northern Iraq."
> The above text is based on remarks delivered on 13 September 2001 by > Stephen Pelletiere, Professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. > Army War College. His presentation was based on his book Iraq and the > International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Gulf > (Praeger: 2001). > __________________________
> "In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical > weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish > victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was > blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently > brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it > seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually > killed the Kurds."
> Excerpts form 1990 Pentagon report, published just prior to the > invasion of Kuwait. Its authors are Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. > Johnson II, and Leif R. Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies > Institute of the U.S. War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The > report is 93 pages, but I append here only the passages having to do > with the aforementioned issue:
> Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East
> Excerpt, Chapter 5
> U.S. SECURITY AND IRAQI POWER
> Introduction. Throughout the war the United States practiced a fairly > benign policy toward Iraq. Although initially disapproving of the > invasion, Washington came slowly over to the side of Baghdad. Both > wanted to restore the status quo ante to the Gulf and to reestablish > the relative harmony that prevailed there before Khomeini began > threatening the regional balance of power. Khomenini’s revolutionary > appeal was anathema to both Baghdad and Washington; hence they wanted > to get rid of him.
> United by a common interest, Iraq and the United States restored > diplomatic relations in 1984, and the United States began to actively > assist Iraq in ending the fighting. It mounted Operation Staunch, an > attempt to stem the flow of arms to Iran. It also increased its > purchases of Iraqi oil while cutting back on Iranian oil purchases, > and it urged its allies to do likewise. All this had the effect of > repairing relations between the two countries, which had been at a > very low ebb.
> In September 1988, however -- a month after the war had ended -- the > State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational > manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its > Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some > background of Iraq’s relations with the Kurds. It is beyond the scope > of this study to go deeply into this matter; suffice it to say that > throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies -- Iran and the > elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds > had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up > with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its > determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican > Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of this operation -- > according to the U.S. State Department -- gas was used, with the > result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi > government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, > Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. > Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on > Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds’ human rights.
> Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find > it impossible to confirm the State Department’s claim that gas was > used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims > produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- > in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover any. > Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on > testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where > they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations > Committee.
> We would have expected, in a matter as serious as this, that the > Congress would have exercised some care. However, passage of the > sanctions measure through the Congress was unusually swift -- at least > in the Senate where a unanimous vote was secured within 24 hours. > Further, the proposed sanctions were quite draconian (and will be > discussed in detail below). Fortunately for the future of Iraqi-U.S. > ties, the sanctions measure failed to pass on a bureaucratic > technicality (it was attached as a rider to a bill that died before > adjournment).
> It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced > by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another > Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah > were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. > Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the > international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even > though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used > chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the > Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.
> Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of > emotionalism than factual information, and without sufficient thought > for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action. As a result of the > outcome of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is now the most powerful state in > the Persian Gulf, an area in which we have vital interests. To > maintain an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Gulf to the West, we > need to develop good working relations with all of the Gulf states, > and particularly with Iraq, the strongest.
> +
> "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism > by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw
During the 2001-02 season, more than three-quarters of the top 25 U.S. orchestras reported deficits, according to Jack McAuliffe of the American Symphony Orchestra League. (ASOL doesn't have figures for 2002-03 yet, but anecdotal evidence suggests the results will be similar, McAuliffe said.)
"It goes back to community priorities and how we make decisions about funding community organizations," said H. Joe Nelson III, president of the Houston Endowment.
"I hear ... people speak with pride that Houston is home to so many wonderful institutions -- and then they don't put their money where their mouth is."
+
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw
We got him: Kurds say they caught Saddam By Paul McGeough, Herald Correspondent in Baghdad December 22, 2003
Washington's claims that brilliant US intelligence work led to the capture of Saddam Hussein are being challenged by reports sourced in Iraq's Kurdish media claiming that its militia set the circumstances in which the US merely had to go to a farm identified by the Kurds to bag the fugitive former president.
The first media account of the December 13 arrest was aired by a Tehran-based news agency.
American forces took Saddam into custody around 8.30pm local time, but sat on the news until 3pm the next day.
However, in the early hours of Sunday, a Kurdish language wire service reported explicitly: "Saddam Hussein was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace.
"Qusrat's team was accompanied by a group of US soldiers. Further details of the capture will emerge during the day; but the global Kurdish party is about to begin!"
The head of the PUK, Jalal Talabani, was in the Iranian capital en route to Europe.
The Western media in Baghdad were electrified by the Iranian agency's revelation, but as reports of the arrest built, they relied almost exclusively on accounts from US military and intelligence organisations, starting with the words of the US-appointed administrator of Iraq, Paul Bremer: "Ladies and gentlemen: we got 'im".
US officials said that they had extracted the vital piece of information on Saddam's whereabouts from one of the 20 suspects around 5.30pm on December 13 and had immediately assembled a 600-strong force to surround the farm on which he was captured at al-Dwar, south of Tikrit.
Little attention was paid to a line in Pentagon briefings that some of the Kurdish militia might have been in on what was described as a "joint operation"; or to a statement by Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraq National Congress, which said that Qusrat and his PUK forces had provided vital information and more.
A Scottish newspaper, the Sunday Herald, quoted from an interview aired on the PUK's al-Hurriyah radio station last Wednesday, in which Adil Murad, a member of the PUK's political bureau,
said that the day before Saddam's capture he was tipped off by a PUK general - Thamir al-Sultan - that Saddam would be arrested within the next 72 hours.
An unnamed Western intelligence source in the Middle East was quoted in the British Sunday Express yesterday: "Saddam was not captured as a result of any American or British intelligence. We knew that someone would eventually take their revenge, it was just a matter of time."
There has been no American response to the Kurdish claims.
+
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw
Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops Sat Dec 20,11:00 PM ET Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!
LONDON, (AFP) - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was captured by US troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a British Sunday newspaper said.
Saddam came into the hands of the Kurdish Patriotic Front after being betrayed to the group by a member of the al-Jabour tribe, whose daughter had been raped by Saddam's son Uday, leading to a blood feud, reported the Sunday Express, which quoted an unnamed senior British military intelligence officer.
The newspaper said the full story of events leading up to the ousted Iraqi president's capture on December 13 near his hometown of Tikrit in northern Iraq (news - web sites), "exposes the version peddled by American spin doctors as incomplete".
A former Iraqi intelligence officer, whom the Express did not name, told the paper that Saddam was held prisoner by a leader of the Kurdish Patriotic Front, which fought alongside US forces during the Iraq war, until he negotiated a deal.
The deal apparently involved the group gaining political advantage in the region.
An unnamed Western intelligence source in the Middle East told the Express: "Saddam was not captured as a result of any American or British intelligence. We knew that someone would eventually take their revenge, it was just a matter of time."
---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke
"In this world, which is so plainly the antechamber of another, there are no happy men. The true division of humanity is between those who live in light and those who live in darkness. Our aim must be to diminish the number of the latter and increase the number of the former. That is why we demand education and knowledge." -- Victor Hugo
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam
> Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops > Sat Dec 20,11:00 PM ET Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!
> LONDON, (AFP) - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was captured by US > troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, > drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a > British Sunday newspaper said.
lol Well, I can't believe that one is true. It'd be too damned funny. I think the Kurds would have torn him to pieces if they found him.
Captain Compassion wrote: > Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops > Sat Dec 20,11:00 PM ET Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!
> LONDON, (AFP) - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was captured by US > troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, > drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a > British Sunday newspaper said.
<snip>
"The BBC reported that the Americans insisted on an American arrest because they were concerned that this news might provoke civil war between Iraqi Arabs and Iraqi Kurds."
What a beautiful /out/ if this turns out to be true. If the Bush boys get busted, they can claim they had to claim they captured him to avoid more bloodshed! What compassionate conservatives they are! Risking the embarassment of being caught in a lie just to aid their fellow man!
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:45:47 GMT, "abracadabra" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Captain Compassion" <res0m...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message >news:3fe67294.16106029@news.verizon.net... >> Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops >> Sat Dec 20,11:00 PM ET Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!
>> LONDON, (AFP) - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was captured by US >> troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, >> drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a >> British Sunday newspaper said.
>lol >Well, I can't believe that one is true. It'd be too damned funny. >I think the Kurds would have torn him to pieces if they found him.
Tikrit is a bit south for the Kurds. This is the Suni/Baathist heartland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke
"In this world, which is so plainly the antechamber of another, there are no happy men. The true division of humanity is between those who live in light and those who live in darkness. Our aim must be to diminish the number of the latter and increase the number of the former. That is why we demand education and knowledge." -- Victor Hugo
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam
Israel is considering a military strike to destroy the nuclear programme of Iran, now regarded as Tel Aviv's number one enemy.
The Israeli daily Haaretz cited defence minister Shaul Mofaz as telling Israel radio's Persian service last week that if a decision was made to destroy Iran's nuclear capability, "necessary
+
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw
Captain Compassion wrote: > Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops > Sat Dec 20,11:00 PM ET Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!
> LONDON, (AFP)
That french spring of lies is not a reliable source.
Consider that 1) Saddam was armed and 2) Saddam was caught with lots of papers that enabled us to capture many of the terrorist that he was working with against the Americans. 3) Saddam had 750,000 on him when he was caught.
Just look at the story - NOT ONE SOURCE IS NAMED. If we have to choose between the veracity of the U.S. story and this Cheese eating surrender monkey rag, the evidence points to the U.S. story. This AFP rag is just out to give the surrender monkeys what they want to hear.
Congressional Republicans also found themselves under renewed pressure last week after Bush, when asked in a television interview to clarify whether he had hard facts about Iraqi weapons or just feared Baghdad may acquire them, replied: "So what's the difference?"
Senator Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites), said the remark was "a stunning revelation" of Bush's "thinking and of his decision to go to war."
US Republicans signal readiness to resume Iraq weapons probe Mon Dec 22, :
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Senate Republicans have signaled their readiness to resume a probe into pre-war charges that Iraq (news - web sites) had weapons of mass destruction, which was halted more than six weeks ago amid bitter partisan bickering.
"I think we will have, hopefully, some public hearings by February," announced Pat Roberts, chairman of the US Senate intelligence committee, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation" program. "We will get those questions out."
US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) and other top administration officials had accused Iraq of secretly producing chemical and biological weapons in violation of UN resolutions -- charges that were used to justify the March invasion of the country.
No banned weapons have been found in Iraq since then, despite an intense search by a team of experts from the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency
The apparent change of heart came after the CIA (news - web sites) acknowledged late last month that it "lacked specific information" about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction when it compiled a 2002 intelligence estimate that served to justify the invasion.
Congressional Republicans also found themselves under renewed pressure last week after Bush, when asked in a television interview to clarify whether he had hard facts about Iraqi weapons or just feared Baghdad may acquire them, replied: "So what's the difference?"
Senator Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites), said the remark was "a stunning revelation" of Bush's "thinking and of his decision to go to war."
"There is a huge difference between having something and seeking something," the lawmaker observed.
+
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:12:22 GMT, (pope_about_town at Xyahoo.com) wrote:
>Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops >Sat Dec 20,
>LONDON, (AFP) - Saddam Hussein was captured by US troops only after >he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, drugged and abandoned >ready for American soldiers to recover him, a British Sunday newspaper >said. >
>The deal apparently involved the group gaining political advantage in >the region. >>>>
Thousands of Iraqi Kurds gathered in Kirkuk on Monday to demand inclusion of the northern oil centre in a future autonomous Kurdish region.
"Kirkuk, Kirkuk, heart of Kurdistan," they chanted in the city centre. "We demand federalism for Kurdistan".
It was the biggest demonstration in Kirkuk, 300 kilometres north of Baghdad, since the Baath regime fell on 9 April.
A giant US flag was also unfurled.
The demonstration was split along party lines between the two main former rebel factions - the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic Party.
"The Kurds are not claiming Kirkuk because the region is rich in oil .. but because its towns and villages are important in Kurdish history and are situated within the geographical borders and administrations of Kurdistan"
+
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw
>Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops >Sat Dec 20,
>LONDON, (AFP) - Saddam Hussein was captured by US troops only after >he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, drugged and abandoned >ready for American soldiers to recover him, a British Sunday newspaper >said. >
>The deal apparently involved the group gaining political advantage in >the region. >>>>
Thousands of Iraqi Kurds gathered in Kirkuk on Monday to demand inclusion of the northern oil centre in a future autonomous Kurdish region.
"Kirkuk, Kirkuk, heart of Kurdistan," they chanted in the city centre. "We demand federalism for Kurdistan".
It was the biggest demonstration in Kirkuk, 300 kilometres north of Baghdad, since the Baath regime fell on 9 April.
A giant US flag was also unfurled.
The demonstration was split along party lines between the two main former rebel factions - the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic Party.
"The Kurds are not claiming Kirkuk because the region is rich in oil .. but because its towns and villages are important in Kurdish history and are situated within the geographical borders and administrations of Kurdistan"
+
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw
> > Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops > > Sat Dec 20,11:00 PM ET Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!
> > LONDON, (AFP)
> That french spring of lies is not a reliable source.
> Consider that 1) Saddam was armed and 2) Saddam was caught with > lots of papers that enabled us to capture many of the terrorist > that he was working with against the Americans. 3) Saddam had > 750,000 on him when he was caught.
> Just look at the story - NOT ONE SOURCE IS NAMED. If we > have to choose between the veracity of the U.S. story > and this Cheese eating surrender monkey rag, the evidence > points to the U.S. story. This AFP rag is just out to > give the surrender monkeys what they want to hear.
1. Has anyone said the gun had any ammunition? 2. If he was indeed trapped in the hole --- the papers could have been placed in the hole with him. How was he to dispose of them --- a shredder? 3. Not a lot of money when it was reported he has billions. 4. The "U.S." story has been shown to wrong so often that a reasonable person could be cautious in believing it just as a reasonable person will await a little more digging before rushing to a judgment. --- I note you do not pass that reasonable person test. 5. Other media outlets are starting to report it now.
>"Captain Compassion" <res0m...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message >news:3fe67294.16106029@news.verizon.net... >> Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops >> Sat Dec 20,11:00 PM ET Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!
>> LONDON, (AFP) - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was captured by US >> troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, >> drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a >> British Sunday newspaper said.
>lol >Well, I can't believe that one is true. It'd be too damned funny. >I think the Kurds would have torn him to pieces if they found him.
In article <3fe6dd11.46912...@news.mybizz.net>, <Unknown> says...
>"The Kurds are not claiming Kirkuk because the region is rich in oil >.. but because its towns and villages are important in Kurdish >history and are situated within the geographical borders and >administrations of Kurdistan"
Yeah, sure. I told you the Turks should have annexed the province of Mosul at the very beginning. But noooo. You wouldn't listen.
This article from August, 2003 shows the real reason for Libyas' decision to get rid of WMD :
Businesses Press for US to Lift Libya Sanctions By Edward Alden New York Times August 21, 2003
US business groups, led by oil companies that hold concessions in Libya, met this week to gear up efforts to persuade the administration of President George W. Bush to ease a trade ban that was imposed on Libya in 1986.
The commercial stakes for the US are substantial. Four US oil companies - Occidental, Amerada Hess, Conoco Phillips and Marathon - hold concessions that could eventually be revoked by Libya if the sanctions were not lifted. More importantly, Libya is considered one of the world's most promising sites for further oil exploration, with non-US companies now pursuing more than 100 exploration licences. ____________________________________________________
UPDATE:
Libya Says Wants U.S. Oil Companies Back Dec. 22, 2003
ALGIERS (Reuters) - Libya will welcome back U.S. oil companies should Washington lift sanctions against it, Libyan Foreign Minister Mohamed Abderrhmane Chalgam told reporters on Monday.
Libya hopes its pledge Friday to abandon weapons of mass destruction may lead to the return of the U.S. oil majors that were once responsible for producing around one million barrels per day of its crude.
Five U.S. oil firms were active in Libya before sanctions on investment in 1986: the Oasis Group, a consortium of three companies, Marathon Oil Co., Amerada Hess and ConocoPhillips; Occidental Petroleum, and Grace Petroleum.
+
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw
Guarded by God, U.S. colonel hunts Iraqi guerrillas
TIKRIT, Iraq, Dec 21 (Reuters) - A U.S. officer leading the hunt for Iraqi guerrillas in Saddam Hussein's home town hones the rifle laser sight before raiding a suspected bombmaker's house.
But Lieutenant Colonel Steven Russell isn't nervous. He believes he has the best protection.
"If God doesn't intend for me to die in Iraq then nothing the enemy can do will make it so," he told Reuters.
"I have a strong belief in Jesus Christ as my lord and saviour."
Meet the man who heads the search for some of Iraq's most dangerous guerrillas in Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit, a grim place that only has dust and flatlands in common with Russell's native Del City, Oklahoma.
Russell is a deeply religious family man who believes good old-fashioned American discipline and prayers will help lead him to Saddam's hardcore supporters.
"The diehards will just have to die hard," he said in an interview, sitting in one of Saddam's former palaces as American soldiers grunted and lifted weights nearby.
U.S. troops also hope ordinary Iraqis will step forward and hand over information on guerrillas. But that's a daunting task in Tikrit.
FORMIDABLE RESISTANCE
"The amount of resistance that we have from former regime loyalists is just staggering. They do believe that by some miracle or Allah's will or whatever they will return," said Russell.
Even young children are mesmerised by Saddam in Tikrit.
When U.S. troops conduct foot patrols young boys gather around but they are not impressed. Many praise Saddam, not soldiers kicking down doors in house searches that have infuriated Iraqis.
Still, Russell said U.S. troops should "stay the course".
"We will take the fight to the enemy at every turn. We are not going to hand out lollipops to them. You use a bullet for those who can't be convinced," he said.
+
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - G. B. Shaw
res0m...@NOSPAMverizon.net (Captain Compassion) wrote in message <news:3fe6984a.25759830@news.verizon.net>... > On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:45:47 GMT, "abracadabra" <a...@hotmail.com> > wrote:
> >"Captain Compassion" <res0m...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message > >news:3fe67294.16106029@news.verizon.net... > >> Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops > >> Sat Dec 20,11:00 PM ET Add Mideast - AFP to My Yahoo!
> >> LONDON, (AFP) - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was captured by US > >> troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, > >> drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a > >> British Sunday newspaper said.
> >lol > >Well, I can't believe that one is true. It'd be too damned funny. > >I think the Kurds would have torn him to pieces if they found him.
> Tikrit is a bit south for the Kurds. This is the Suni/Baathist > heartland.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Madmen reason rightly from the wrong premisis" -- Locke
> "In this world, which is so plainly the antechamber of another, there > are no happy men. The true division of humanity is between those who > live in light and those who live in darkness. Our aim must be to > diminish the number of the latter and increase the number of the > former. That is why we demand education and knowledge." -- Victor Hugo
> "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other > is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand
> Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam
> Joseph R. Darancette > res0m...@NOSPAMverizon.net
Oh but your geographic facts don't fit the left's hate Bush first agenda and their desire to believe way out Anti-Bush conspiracy theories. If our guys got Saddam then great, if the Kurds got him great.
Bush should tell the Sunnis that if they don't cool it on the attacks, which I think is happening already, that we will arm the Shia and Kurds then send them into the Sunni triangle. I think the Sunni are finally smelling the coffee now that Saddam has been arrested.
(pope_about_town at Xyahoo.com) wrote in message <news:3fe6d256.44165548@news.mybizz.net>... > Congressional Republicans also found themselves under renewed pressure > last week after Bush, when asked in a television interview to clarify > whether he had hard facts about Iraqi weapons or just feared Baghdad > may acquire them, replied: "So what's the difference?"
> Senator Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services > Committee (news - web sites), said the remark was "a stunning > revelation" of Bush's "thinking and of his decision to go to war."
|
